Wikipedia:Peer review/Corner Gas/archive1

Corner Gas[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for October 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I am new to editing TV series articles, and have tried to follow the guidelines. Many editors have worked on the article, it would be good to pursue GA or FA status for the article, and begin here.

Thanks, SriMesh | talk 03:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

The lead of the article could do a better job of following WP:LEAD. I think it goes into too much detail on some things (which episodes the mention of it being the only gas station in 60 km) but neglects to mention other things in the article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. The article may need fewer sections / header too - please see WP:LEAD
There are a number of very short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections (including the 3rd paragraph in the lead and the WGN America distribution section). These should be combined with others or expanded if possible.
Biggest problem I see with this reaching GA or FA is a lack of references. For example, four of the five subsections in Setting have no refs, and the Dog River subsection only has refs in one of its three paragraphs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
Any chance of a cast photo? It would have to be a fair use, but I think it would be justified.
A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are many FAs which are about television shows, see Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Media

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]